User talk:Kalki/November 2009 Controversies

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."Foundational Principles against overly-controlling forces developing on the wikis.
Even if you have read them before, PLEASE EXAMINE ANEW: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and the other links available there, including the links delineating much which Wikipedia was NOT. These were some of the earliest directives established by the founding workers on the Wikimedia projects.

I almost prefer the time when, despite much less participation and much less software safeguards against vandalism, the most I had to concern myself here was actual vandalization of a few wikis, and not the continual eroding and vandalization of the wiki-process itself.
As with last year's torturously tedious debate prompted by the rather hostile and presumptuous attitude and proposal of a single person, which at the end finally came to a close without a single vote to actually seek the "disbanding" of Wikiquote, despite the evidence of some desire on the part of a few people for such an end, I really don't take this too seriously at this point.
I was about to react with a few words of amused but extreme contempt at the original assertions of the person who prompted last year's debate, as I might to any other troll, when I saw that in some ways more moderate voices were responding to the presumptuous proposal, and with many far more intense and immediately imperative concerns, I decided to stay out of the whole discussion unless I perceived that there was any actual need for me to get involved.
I might actually have some time to get involved in these proposed discussions within the next month or so, but really am appalled at the blooming number of self-glorified discussion-forums that seem to be considered "essential" or "vitally important" by their participants and initiators to everyone else on all Wikimedia projects, because they are presumed to be by these relatively few participants. These areas of the Wikimedia activities seem disproportionally frequented by the most avid lovers of finding new ways of "policy creation" which allow them, or others of very like mind, to assume control over others, and even be placed in positions of authority and command over them. The whole concept of the wiki-processes, as I understand them involves an emphasis on preserving the freest possible collaboration among people, which permits the natural growth, development and mutation of good ideas, with an emergence of their proper influences, and a minimization of presumptive command-control authority-structures to impede that process, but unfortunately these seem to be growing all the time lately, both in numbers and in the presumptions of their authority. ~ Kalki 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You might find your arguments more convincing to other people if you cut out all the random 'emphasis'. I see that there's an intelligent, concerned person there, but others may not be so understanding. 121a0012 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I am highly amused once more, by what seems to be an all-too-common misuse of words. Your argument here might be a little bit less comical to me, if you actually used the word "random" properly, or rather, not use it at all, as applied to deliberate selections of another person's mind. As it is, I believe the emphasis I use is usually quite proper and appropriate. Others might not, but it is not truly their perogative to decide what I choose to express, nor how I chose to express it.

Truly, I know well, that though I believe I am generally genial to most people, in arguments over issues about which I have deep concerns, I can often seem "haughty", and sometimes even extremely angry at people with when I let loose a few harsh words regarding their actions or attitudes, and that is one of the reasons why, in the past, I chose not to comment on some issues to the extent I might have desired. You have very little idea how long and how much, and with what pains and sacrifices I and others have long been fighting against the all-too-common impulses of people to find ways to absolutely command or control others in very unfair ways, and fighting for a greater respect of permitting honest influences and expressions of true intelligence and wisdom to develop, amidst those who are all too eager to impose drab, dull, and quite deficient and detrimental regulations upon others. I am not a person who denies a need for rules and agreements, and many forms of self-discipline, but I am a person very much against the ways of people who are regularly going around believing that they know what is best for other people to do, and what rules others should follow and agreements they should accept or absolutely defer to.
You, more than once, have struck me as a person prone to be of that sort, but I know that we all have our peculiar perspectives on matters, and the right to express them so effectively as we can. I have long recognized that no person is perfect in all regards and I certainly make no claims of such nonsense in regard to myself. I do actually laugh at myself quite often, and at both the insults and flatteries people might try to use upon me, but the things I find most difficult to transcend are the concerted efforts that are often made to permanently or severely constrain anyone's proper freedoms.

Honest expressions will sometimes bring honest contention, but I believe this is usually better than any form of dishonest compromises, based on presumptions of such agreements as do not, should not, or cannot actually exist. I have long recognized that no person is perfect in all regards and I certainly make no claims of such nonsense in regard to myself, or anyone else. I do actually laugh at myself quite often, and at both the insults and flatteries people might try to use upon me, but the things I find most difficult to transcend are the concerted efforts that are often made to permanently or severely constrain anyone's proper freedoms.

I would actually say that I believe myself, generally, far more acceptive and less resentful of people's differences than most are, despite many things they might do which could frustrate or even anger me, but I absolutely do not deny that I sometimes feel anger at people's actions and attitudes against what I perceive to be others proper rights to experiment and explore their own potentials, rather than be absolutely constrained and limited by what others believe they should be. This is what I have decided to begin becoming a bit more expressive about, here and elsewhere. ~ Kalki 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The above comments are a restoration of some of my initial responses, which I eventually removed entirely with the comment "removing some comments I made earlier.... I simply should continue in silence about many matters — though I was amused as well as irritated, I was & am rather tired..." Though I continue to be amused as well as irritated, I think it best that my responses remain more visibly recorded and accessible. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

An investigation by checkusers on several projects as well as two stewards has confirmed that administrator and bureaucrat Kalki (talk · contributions) has created and used in excess of 100 sockpuppets.

This was first noticed in July 2008 as a pattern of unusual account creations on other wikis, that rarely made any edits except to set up a user page, but which often had many edits on Wikiquote. The accounts were investigated by the Wikiquote checkusers at the time including Aphaia, Jeffq and Cato. Jusjih, who was a Wikimedia steward at the time but not yet a local checkuser, was informed and asked for his opinion.

Those three local checkusers determined that the accounts were not used to vote stack, but some of them were used to add images to pages in support of Kalki's position in a controversy at the time over images. A complete list of 2008 sockpuppets on English Wikiquote was circulated among English Wikiquote checkusers. A list of sockpuppet accounts that were created on Wikisource was posted to the checkuser mailing list whose IP addresses matched Kalki and his sockpuppets. Those accounts are given below.

By email, Kalki discussed the issue briefly with the Wikiquote checkusers and was finally warned to stop by Cato, in late July, 2008. In early August, additional checks showed Kalki had stopped using other accounts, but he never made an explicit agreement to stop.

Recently a similar pattern of behavior came to the attention of checkusers on Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons and Wikiversity. These accounts are not used disruptively on these projects but are often created there; usually their only edits are to set up their user pages. The accounts often have more edits on Wikiquote. With help of stewards and other established users who hold checkuser permission on other wikis, Aphaia investigated the newly created socks as well as the unblocked 2008 sockpuppets and concluded Kalki re-started his sock-activities beginning February 2009, if not earlier.

Kalki has been asked by Aphaia and by User:Thatcher (Wikipedia checkuser) for an explanation and to stop it again. Kalki has not responded.

I'd like to invite the English Wikiquote community to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the roles of administrator and bureaucrat through a vote of confidence. The tentative policy says, "Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called." (from WQ:RFA). So I hereby propose a vote of confidence on Kalki and call for support from at least three established users. --Aphaia 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The following is a list of confirmed accounts from this year and last year.

As wiki policies permitted the creation of multiple accounts it is a practice I have long engaged in, from the very first days of my involvement with the wiki projects, sometimes merely to make my contributions to various pages a little more amusing and interesting, sometimes with intentions of making some of these names major contributors in different ways, upon different fields of knowledge.

As any thorough investigation would indicate, I have certainly never misused any of my accounts for vandalism, and often used them to counter vandalism without actually intervening as an administrator. I have never sought to have any of them assigned any level of status beyond that of simple "user", despite sometimes having some of these names being asked to consider status as an admin on this and other projects. Last year some of the admins on other wikis seem to have mistaken some of these username creations I was making at the time for those of a vandal, and some of these were blocked, perhaps because I used names that may have been suspiciously similar to some used by known vandals on some other wikis, but I never sought a full reason on some of these blocks on accounts that never engaged in anything but positive contributions to the wikis, or minor preparations for doing such.

I have also certainly never used any of my accounts for vote-stacking, or to deliberately get involved in any controversies as if any of these identities were separate persons commenting on the issues, though I know I have inadvertently got into some of these to minor degrees on the same pages, usually at widely separate times, and not intentionally. If any images were added at any times of the relatively rare periods of minor controversy at the practice of adding images, I believe it was likely inadvertent, as it is a practice I have engaged in regularly since images at the Wikimedia Commons has been available.

My desire to have much, and even eventually most, of my work here done under various pseudonyms, depending upon the subjects worked upon has clearly been mitigated by this act of publication, and for this reason, I am very disappointed that this has occurred, as it prevents me from doing much good in subtle and not immediately obvious ways, but "So it goes..."

As Aphaia stated I "never made an explicit agreement to stop" in my creation of pseudonyms — because this was being demanded of me as if such a demand was necessitated by any official policy, or as if I had actually done anything wrong with any of these accounts, and I certainly had NOT. I desisted from creating new names for a while, including a few I highly desired to acquire and use, sometimes because I use these names elsewhere than Wikimedia projects, but I continue to pursue activities with a great regard for the virtues of humility, courage, honesty and compassion, and the social ideals of Justice and Liberty, as most of my activity on my most active accounts clearly indicates, and there are many reasons, both trivial and profound, for which I have wished to operate under different names in working at various tasks.

This is just a brief response to this posting — I probably will have much more to say on the matter in the days and weeks ahead, and I will probably need to revise and scrap some of my plans for some major contributions on this and other projects, as I deal with this controversy. ~ Kalki 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at least once or twice I have edited pages or even commented upon some issue, inadvertently using a different username than I had actually intended, because I often work from multiple web browsers at the same time, both here and elsewhere, for various reasons, and usually logged in under differing usernames, but such occurrences have been VERY rare. ~ Kalki 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I just edited this and a few other pages using a name I had been keeping largely in reserve, and used only a few times before: Gardener, which I had wanted to keep largely unassociated with my primary name, but that hope is now dashed. One of the earlier commentaries I composed during the period of controversy last year was as Accountability, and there were other commentaries I made with some usernames which became openly associated with that account, including the very long standing name Rumour, under which I had actually attended the Wikimania conferences at Harvard, but I probably won't have time to check on all my own past remarks on the matter of pseudonyms today, and it might take me a week or more simply to assess and sufficiently review past remarks and prepare more current ones. I do remain busy with many things other than internet projects, but I do expect to be available on the computer for much of today, and will probably post a few more comments. Though I make no promises as to immediately or even eventually answering all questions which might arise, I do intend to be rigorously honest in all of my statements. ~ Kalki 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another account I had much wanted to use, as a separate and relatively obscure identity, occasionally spreading minor posts of encouragement and affirmations of the value of all Awareness, Life, and Love, on various pages was Yes. But truly that was one of the intentions in my creation of nearly all these accounts: to do a little good in this world, relatively secretly and quietly, by the sharing of what insights and wisdom have guided me and many others in life, and to avoid generating much attention to myself in doing so, but rather to generate a little greater attention to many of the ideas presented, by some of the names I chose to operate under. ~ Kalki 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A few other of my favorite "in reserve" identities which I had wanted to use extensively, were Awareness which is something I hold we are all manifestations of, to varying degrees (along with Ignorance and Confusion), and the names Harlequin, Random Act of Kindness, and Senseless Act of Beauty, which convey much of such things as I wished to be involved in doing. I am somewhat more irritated at having been revealed to be Moby than with other names, as I very early on got into some rather extensive disputes with a prominent neo-Nazi vandal in that guise, and as MOBY at Wikpedia. Reviewing many of these names and quotes I posted on them, brings back some memories and ideas that I had let rest for quite some time, and I will probably elaborate upon many of these in the next few days and weeks, but I must be leaving soon for about an hour, and will be making another trip soon after that for at least as long, so I won't be here all day, though I do expect to be available for most of it. ~ Hope 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (also known as Kalki)

Aphaia (talk · contributions) noted above: The tentative policy says, "Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called." (from WQ:RFA). So I will start that process here, below. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalki: CONDITIONAL support : I acknowledge this is probably necessary now, now that the issue has been raised. I do request that no actual vote begin until I have time to adequately prepare my arguments in defense of my activities, and I expect this will take me at least a few days. I would like at least a week, and the 11th of November would be a date very acceptable to me. I am not currently at home, and am just checking in briefly before going on a few more excursions, between which I might have a few minutes to check in again. I remain very busy with many things, and would like time to consider how much I wish to reveal, or let remain undisclosed, as relate to this matter, and will consider all communications I have had in the past on it as material to draw upon in presenting my arguments, though I might also decline to do so. I usually try to be only as harsh as necessary, and as gentle as possible in my debates with others, but I expect I will eventually be asserting truths that some will find very harsh indeed, in making my arguments. I am disappointed that the issue has been raised in this manner, but accept I must proceed honestly and vigorously in addressing it over the next few days and weeks. ~ Kalki 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BD2412. We, as a community, need to decide when and to what extent it is appropriate for a user to contribute under multiple accounts, without having previously informed the community of the use of those accounts. I understand that it appears that Kalki wishes to do some work here without receiving credit for it, which is selfless but pointless. Our goal is to build an authoritative collection of quotations, and we are served by transparency in establishing how we came to decide what belongs and how it is to be presented. BD2412T 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Although I'm not a checkuser on this project, I'm aware of the facts in the matter due to the cross wiki aspect of the situation. I'm adding my vote to make it clear that more than 2 people think that this issue needs to be resolved through a vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully support the need for a vote of confidence to be undertaken. The deflection of reasonable questions is starting to look like prevarication and does not indicate a person putting the project as a primary concern. Nothing against people having personal interests, however, a vested interest appears to be becoming a conflict of interest in this situation. The potential for a conflict of interest has to be investigated and resolved. Billinghurst 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently received a post on my talk page regarding "trivial and non-trivial action":

Kalki, personally I think it is okay to wait for you until you have a time to prepare to give responses properly for your call for confidence as long as you esteem another part of the policy: it says "In the case of a called proposal, the user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed.
If you continue to use your sysop/b'crat power and want to hold the process, I am afraid I cannot support the idea to give you some moments. It were just to postpone the process for letting you use the right.
Please consider your actions in regard of the policy and think more carefully if it is trivial and can be therefore delayed. If you continue to use the right and insist the process should be started much later, I cannot be for the schedule you requested.

In response to this I here clearly make my own Support for a vote entirely provisional on my continued use of admin powers until such a vote begins, and wish that not to occur until the 11th, as I remain very busy with many things, and do not feel that I have as yet had sufficient time to prepare for my defenses to the best of my abilities. I am not so adamant about using admin powers during the actual vote, if that is indeed part of the prescriptive rules I must follow, IF I am given a few days to make some preparations until then, but truly don't see that there is any actual need for this either. It has already taken me a few hours of my very limited time, in which I had wished to do some constructive work on a few pages here, to fully prepare what I wish to say in this message.

I believe that in many major and minor endeavors of life, we are all approaching points where we will have to decide whether we wish to fight so vigorously as we can against the many ways of injustice, error and tyranny, or to side with those who most regularly are willing to pit themselves against the ultimate principles of Justice, Truth and Liberty, which to many who have very petty, constrained, craven, cowardly minds which have long profited or benefitted by injustice, lies and associated delusions which have provided them convenient, comfortable, but ultimately unnecessary control over the will and actions of others, can often seem the more risky and terrifying of dooms.

I believe that I am actually being accused of, and make no pretense of not being guilty of, is engaging in behavior and practices that others find a bit eccentric, inexplicable and cannot fully understand or appreciate. In that regard I am willing to plead entirely GUILTY, as charged, along with 100% of Humanity. There is no person who has ever lived, and certainly none of any significant prominence who was not in some ways eccentric and peculiar, and inclined to do some things others could not fully understand or appreciate — no matter how drab, conformist, and well regulated they might seem to themselves or a few others.

Aphaia is attempting to assert that by defying, ignoring or in any way opposing her will, and perhaps that of a few others, I have clearly violated official policy, and ought to immediately be stripped of all my long held admin and bureaucratic priveleges. I assert that this is a delusion, but acknowledge that if enough other people are willing to join her in promoting such delusions I will be forced to defer to their will — but I will not consent to retreat from calling them anything but deluded in this regard.

Though sometimes choices available to people might seem very ambiguous and uncertain, especially when they are very complex, as they very often are, I hope that the choices here are going to become very clear to most.

I fully accept that my use of many names can seem very peculiar and even alarming to those who have, as yet, but very little idea as to all the things I have long been involved in doing, and attempting, all of my life. I am a profoundly committed advocate of both Justice and Liberty, and the ultimate Truths of Love and Love of Truth which alone can unite them in vitally harmonious ways. I am NOT someone who wishes to ever act as an advocate for any extremely narrow or restrictive partisan political or religious creeds or dogmas, or overly restrictive social processes, but I do desire to treat all people as fairly as possible, no matter what their opinions and views might be of me or anyone else. Though I generally try to be as gentle as possible and only as harsh as I truly believe to be necessary, this does NOT mean that I feel bound to always be extremely polite, engaging or gentle in my dealing with others, as some might seek to imply should always be the case, and will assert that if someone advocates needlessly harmful or dangerous activities — such as seeking to unjustly or needlessly constrain what other people can say in defense or protection of themselves or others — other people should be entirely free to express their contempt for that, and their determined will to oppose it in the strongest possible terms.

I believe that many of my general policies and practices can be summed up thus: Do only what you plainly and honestly believe there is need to do in regard to the constraining, condemning or harming of others, and in all possible ways permit and encourage all the diversity and freedom that you can with good conscience permit and encourage. I believe that this attitude is clearly evident in most of the edits under many of the usernames I have chosen, both here and elsewhere, and even where it is not, my intentions were to use all these and other names in beneficial and not malicious ways. I am fully aware that what will seem to be necessary or unavoidable to some will often seem excessive or extreme to others, but so long as fundamental concepts of principles are not involved most people generally can and do get along with each other.

Though long alert to the will of some to restrict me and others in ways that to my knowledge are NOT yet and never have been a part of official policy here, I was not expecting so suddenly harsh and frankly brutal a treatment and assertion of imperious authoritarian behavior as has actually begun to occur, no matter how politely couched it might sometimes be in gentle words and assertions. I always seek to look to the essence of things meant or implied by the acts and expressions of others, and not merely to such words and symbols as are commonly used as if they meant and could only mean one thing, no matter how contrary to the thing overtly claimed to be what the essence of an expression actually reveals.

I generally like to have clearly considerate levels of control and deliberation in the things I do, and am willing to be very patient and tolerant in conflicts with others towards anything but clear and outright malice, with a generally "laid-back" "wait and see" attitude towards most circumstances, and a freely chosen practice of rigorously disciplined exercises and procedures, where there is clear threat to such human well-being as the evident inclination of some to impose rigorous rules of discipline and personal will upon others, without any clear need.

Unlike me, some people seem to often be inclined to be what I am sometimes very inclined to call very impatient, power-hungry imperious "control-freaks" towards others, and not very tolerant of any assertions which might indicate that they themselves might possibly be working entirely in the best interests of human progress towards social harmony in many of their actions, but rather towards some form of absolutely officious and authoritarian manners of control over others. They often regularly seem to act upon the principle : "Be as harsh as possible, and only as gentle a necessary in dealing with those you oppose."

Aphaia objects that I have responded to her accusations and demands as if they are entirely trivial. I will here openly declare them in many ways extremely contemptible, but I do not mean to imply in any way that they are entirely trivial. I do believe their are some dangers and certainly more than a few impelled inconveniences in some of her attitudes and demands, and that the burdens of removing from me, or not permitting me to use my admin powers here while she proceeds to denigrate and devastate far more than she could possibly be aware of, are anything but trivial.

In response to them, I will attempt to take some measures in the next day or so to use my admin access to QOTD pages to prepare them for the coming week, and the chances that anyone other than Aphaia wants to see me stripped of my abilities immediately, as if they truly believed that there were any "clear and present danger" of me misusing them in some wild and uncontrolled manner, anywhere near the levels of the wild and uncontrolled manner in which she has already attempted to dramatically make accusations against me, of misusing my abilities as an admin, because I did not immediately and abjectly submit to or respond to such demands as she was determined to make upon me.

If there are others here who are actually inclined to join with her, and believe that people who are even openly suspected of mis-using their powers, should immediately suspend all use of them in all regards, I would then have to defer to such judgment, but I would also, to be JUST, feel that I would have to call for a review of how Aphaia has, in my very sincere view, misused her ability as a checkuser, to directly publicize many details about me and the issue in question that need not have been publicized. The issue could have been raised very clearly and far more safely for myself and others without the naming of most of these names, and indeed I was in the past clearly willing to have the issue raised, without getting involved in it at all as Kalki, but only as the more obscure Accountability, Rumour and other names already openly associated with them, and perhaps with Achilles and a few others which I would have at that point have also openly associated — with the potential damages possible in such debates about the use of user names restricted to them, and willing to abide with whatever was decided. Even at worse, with a decision to constrain people in ways they had not been constrained, which I would have vigorously fought against with a few of my openly associated names, and not necessarily as Kalki, the damage to me and to others would have been far more contained.

Aphaia has now precipitated a crisis I will openly assert I believe she truly has not yet actually begun to fathom the full gravity of, and has already done severe damage to some of my long-term efforts to do good in this world in many subtle and anonymous ways — which I never actually meant to have any very strong associations with the wikimedia projects at all, other than a few user names in common here, that I sometimes was simply reserving here against their possible misuse by others. Though I know this might seem melodramatically paranoid to people not aware of all the circumstances I am aware of, her actions in needlessly and openly publicizing a few of these user names has actually to some degree, ultimately endangered my own and other people's lives and already necessitated the extreme revision of many years of work. I will now publicly ask her to cease and desist from any intentions she might have of publicizing any more, as I will openly assert that at least one of these could endanger me and others even more severely, and at the very least would burden me and others with many more extreme hardships.

I don't intend to elaborate at this point entirely how or why I tend to believe some of these assertions to be true, as that would probably only worsen some very dangerous circumstances which I seek to avoid or diminish, but I will go so far as to say that I do sincerely believe it, and will state that if anything actually does eventually happen to me or others, in coming months or years, because of information she has unwittingly created avenues of public access to, that people be forgiving of her, and remember that I openly declare my own notions of true justice do not embrace those such as promote mere vengeance, and rather I seek to actively promote far fairer forms of relationships and progress among people than those summarized by "eye for an eye" — which as some have clearly indicated would leave the whole world as blind as it has ever been.

In regard to such people as have done or permitted unjustly damaging or unjustly constraining actions towards others I am inclined to join a very great man in declaring "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" but also, to those actively engaged in or inclined to even increase their acts of harmful destruction and unwarranted lusts for control over others, I am also inclined to say: "Deliberate and consider matters to the fullest extent possible, but always be prepared to use ALL just means at your disposal to STOP THEM, for they know not what they do."

Such are my assertions in regard to nearly all attempts to constrict, constrain or remove many forms of human freedom and proper liberties. In regard to Aphaia, I will assert that I believe her impatience might be more the result of anticipation and trepidation at the some of defenses I might have time to more extensively prepare than any genuine concern that I might misuse my powers as an administrator in the few days now remaining before the 11th, or afterward, during whatever period of voting occurs.

I believe that I have many times communicated to others here and elsewhere that I am engaged in far more than internet activities in my life, that I don't regularly check my emails, and sometimes go for many days or even weeks without checking them : currently, as I type this my email count among my PRIMARY accounts alone — those I most often check — is 912 UNREAD, not counting the 69 diverted into the likely "Junk" folder by my spam filter, and some of which I might actually sort through in the next week or so. I do not consider it likely that I shall in that brief period thoroughly examine all of them, nor consider it my own or anyone else's obligation to be in constant touch with the internet or with others unless they make a commitment to do so, which I certainly have NOT.

In her last email to me (the first in many months that I received — and I have not yet located any communications to me from anyone by the name of Thatcher), she stated on 23 October 2009:

Kalki, as you were noticed by another editor, we at checkusers found a group of accounts on several projects including ENWQ which are alleged sockpuppets, and found that your account Kalki used the same IP address and alone, we are therefore going to conclude they belong to you.
If I recall correctly, Kalki, you have given up a similar custom to accumulate accounts mostly for one-time purposes and promised us at ENWQ CUs at that time including Jeff and me.
I would like to hear from you if you created and used those accounts. If you did, I am afraid to say, but you broke your words to give it up: creating other accounts repeatedly just to hide your presence when you are actually doing something ....
If then, I am very reluctant though, since I respect you as a productive editor and have trusted as an admin with your wisdom, I feel I need to say you are now better to give back you two roles on the project: admin and crats, because now your confidence, the value of your words are confronted, and in my humble opinion a sysop must intent to keep his words.
Hope to hear you back soon, Cheers,

This declaration shows that at that point she was clearly under an extreme misapprehension that I had agreed to something I was very confident I had NOT, and had never indicated any disposition to agree to, but hardly seems the words of someone about to do what she subsequently did, nor to my view in any way justifies it, especially since she seems to have realized I never had made any such promise by the time she posted her call seeking to have me stripped of my administrator and bureaucrat status. But people who put too much of their trust in such deficient rules and perceptions as people often create for themselves and others often lose track of such facts, as the one that I had not actually broken any promise, or to my knowledge actually violated any policies.

Very coincidentally, I was actually making some active preparations to respond to her email when I noticed her sudden and dramatic call for a vote of confidence in regard to me. Knowing it had been some time since the message was sent, I actually decided to check to see if she had made any discrete public comments on my talk page, that I might respond to there, before I responded to her by email, and at that very point was very alarmed to discovered she had taken what I consider to be her rather extreme and unwarranted actions in posting this long list of some of my names at the village pump.

I will assert that I do intend to call for a strong and repudiation of these impulses to unnecessarily control and constrain others merely because someone might misuse their abilities in malicious ways, even though they have never given any inclination to do so, or even conceivably do so monstrously unfathomable a deed as to use them in absurdly "senseless" obviously "trivial" ways as many can perceive no clear reasons for at all, like choosing to use the names Senseless Act of Beauty and Random Act of Kindness, to help spread a little bit of encouragement and good will in the world.

I assert that last year others involved in the dispute which then existed, fully had the right as human beings to make such demands as they did, or any others they might wish to, no matter how absurd, but they had not the proper authority or power to demand I conform with their will — and I assert that I fully had the right to ignore and disregard all their pretensions to such authority, without an official policy regarding names, and strongly indicated that I was inclined to do so.

If they pressed the matter more, I would have raised the issue then under one of my usernames, and I certainly would have provided a few names, by which others could make some assessment of the nature of my activities, and if they found even one case of outright vandalism or clearly unethical use of any of these usernames, I would assert their right to point out any such name.

I had yesterday already had some time to prepare these words regarding what I considered to be Aphaia's extreme neglect of some of her duties and responsibilites as a checkuser, in making a public post of all of these names, in which, whether she is aware of it or not, she has stripped me of my ability to completely as possible "disappear" and remain untraceable as an individual, if I so chose, which was always one of the accepted rights among the wiki-users here. I yet indicated that, though I was appalled, I was willing to stifle my outrage:

People make mistakes, sometimes with unalterable consequences, and I hope with such words as I speak here to help such mistakes as these from becoming enduring patterns, but if such unwarranted disclosures about people, in her zeal to control or command them to comply with her will again occur with anyone, then I would have to ask her to resign or face such a vote of confidence as she has called upon me.
With this single act of rather irresponsible disclosure, she has forever removed from me the ability to disappear from the arena of public debates, without leaving clear indications of who I am, and who many people I have in many ways striven to protect are — and I now am on a path where it is likely I shall not be able to disappear from the arena of public debates and disputes save by death — and anyone who is familiar with the many the forms of extreme bigotry and presumption which I have opposed and actively plan to oppose will know that there are many extremists who would be more than willing to hasten that disappearance in whatever ways they can, and to even think of themselves as righteous servants of virtue in using whatever means available to silence me and to impede many of the ultimate ideals of Justice, Unity, Liberty such as I promote.

I was going to mention much of this to some degree, but I was clearly NOT going to call for Aphaia's resignation or dismisal as checkuser, and at this point, still do NOT intend to, despite the harm and irritation she has already done to me, because frankly we do need at least a few people with checkuser abilities here, even if they are often very zealous and perhaps even slightly overzealous, but I do wish to vigorously note that my services to this project in actual work, rather than rule-making, which I tend to abhor, far exceeds that of anyone else, and I do not believe removing my abilities as an admin would in any way be helpful to the project, though it might seem helpful to people who are seekers of control, rather than respecters of liberty, and who are often inclined to be jealous, envious, suspicious and resentful of anyone with abilities or freedoms they do not have.

If my current and future appeals to other's consciences fails, and much of the good that I have done and sought to do comes to be even more thoroughly devastated by the whims and decisions of others as to what official policies here should be, then so be it: I have sincerely spoken much of my conscience and given many of the most significant reasons for my own attitudes, actions and decisions, and may they continue to live with whatever may exist of theirs.

Both in my capacities and will to do both physical and mental work, others have at times been very impressed and called me a "work-horse" — and I will be a bit harsh here in declaring that though I work to the extent I am able in many ways, much of my work in coming days and weeks looks like it will be diverted by the demands of people I hold to be very mentally lazy and tyrannically presumptuous, and I am taking measures to become a "war-horse". People who know me well, no I am often willing to bear many jokes, insults and slights in regard to my person, and even in regard to much that I cherish in life, but I am no one to be casually trifled with when it comes to my determination to do all that I can to protect and defend what I perceive to be among the principle social imperatives of Justice, Truth and Liberty.

Before the Wikimedia Foundation itself existed — which was created to serve the projects, and not to serve the whims of control freaks to exercise needless forms authority over them, I was a user and contributor to this project and several others, from their very first days, and made an administrator in their very first months, long before the currently bloated bureaucracy of hyper-active meddlers and wannabe commanders-of-others regularly crying for or demanding others attention ever existed among the Wikimedia projects. As I previously stated, I am more than willing to give up my bureaucrat privileges as something that are no longer clearly required of me here, and am even somewhat inclined to simply resign from that, whether many others are inclined to demand it or not, as I do not greatly wish to continue to be a bureaucrat in so blind, bumbling and overly officious bureaucracy as I feel is clearly developing among the projects — but I clearly do wish to retain my abilities as an admin, because they remain clearly useful to me and to others as a regular vandal fighter and as the person who has been most responsible for the QOTD selections since the earliest months, and I do not see that this project will be served by the taking of these abilities away from me — as Aphaia and perhaps some others who are irritated by me and other people being free to be active in ways they cannot entirely control or understand, seem to believe might be the case.

As the length of this rather sudden creation indicates, I am not a person who treats some forms of behavior trivially, and do the best I can to respond to it in very thoroughly thoughtful ways. I am also well aware that not everyone has similar dispositions, and I cannot wish them to be so concerned about me or others as I am about most, but I do hope that people who do respond to these calls for action to take time to consider all that has been said, by me and by others, using this and many of my other names now here made available to you, and to side with the principles of Liberty, loving laughter, and joyous devotions to Life itself, rather than serving to ally yourselves with the morbidly mortifying ways of authoritarian and officious control over people, that are often misconceived of as "necessary" or inescapable.

I now make an appeal for no one else to support this call until the 11th, even if they actually wish to chose to declare themselves against me, so that it will be delayed until then, and I can take further time to prepare my arguments. I continue to desire to have more time to further determine how stern and relaxed, and how humorous or outraged my expressions should be in my defense of many forms of freedom (which is always limited by Necessity) and Liberty (which I hold to be extremely sacred, and something actually beyond all the limited definitions and notions of mortal minds). I actually expect to be very busy much of today in non-computer work, but still might have time to do a bit of work here in the hours before I actually leave, and after I return.

Since earliest childhood I have loved many of the most splendid quotes of humanity, and will here quote an author who has long greatly inspired me with his humor and wit, and capacity to see beyond much of the absurdity of the world, and those so deluded as to be inclined to believe that it can or ever should be controlled completely by mortal expressions of rules and laws: James Branch Cabell, whose most famous quote is probably a portion of the one I posted at the start of this essay, regarding the limited reliability of many casual and rigorous human assumptions. Another of my favorites of his is this:

I have read that the secret of gallantry is to accept the pleasures of life leisurely, and its inconveniences with a shrug; as well as that, among other requisites, the gallant person will always consider the world with a smile of toleration, and his own doings with a smile of honest amusement, and Heaven with a smile which is not distrustful — being thoroughly persuaded that God is kindlier than the genteel would regard as rational.

I will continue to make what preparations I can for an very vigorous defense of myself and many of my actions on the 11th, "Remembrance Day", and assert that I do NOT wish to have to feel bound to further defend myself before that, or to eventually have to make any call for a vote of confidence against Aphaia as a check-user, despite having some moments of extreme irritation, anger and outrage at some of her behavior in acting as she has. I continue to attempt to be more amused than bemused or angered at many circumstances, but to some degree I will confess my own patience, which most who know me well have long thought of as usually extraordinary, is wearing a bit thin. ~ Kalki 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's rather a lot to wade through. Why subject folk to so much dense prose when what is being asked is a short justification for your past actions and an agreement to discontinue them going forward? I'm not a regular user here by any means but I participated in the initial discussions last year (and in the discussions this year as well) about what to do. Kalki, maintenance of dozens or hundreds of undisclosed accounts like this is not an acceptable practice on most wikis. It is unseemly for an admin and bureaucrat to be doing this and you need to discontinue it. As you were asked to do last year. If you will not, I think your powers should be taken away and the accounts all blocked. That's an outsider's view to be sure, but there you are. Further, Aphaia is to be commended for trying to come to grips with this matter, not condemned. ++Lar: t/c 06:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it is a lot to wade through — but so are the massive amounts of rules and presumptions that are accumulating in varying ways amidst many of the various projects lately. I wish to make it very plain here: I do not condemn Aphaia — I admire MOST people I am in any way familiar with far more than I could ever hope to fully express, but I vigorously and honestly condemn some of her actions as presumptuous and needlessly damaging to me and to others. Indeed, once I have attended to far more urgent matters, some of which her actions have caused me to begin to drastically revise, as previous aliases I had used or intended to use elsewhere than the Wikimedia projects are in many ways no longer viable, and even in some ways dangerous, I actually intend to thank her for causing me such difficulties as I hope I shall be able to surmount in a positive way, even though it has come at a very dear cost to me, and perhaps to others. But I will wait until I actually surmount them, and am done with many of the necessary efforts, and not presently, where there remains much that I must yet do.
In these few words you might possibly begin to discern the differences and distinctions that exist in my own mind and that of the vast majority of people who are often eager to condemn, constrain and destroy what they cannot fully appreciate and understand. The nearly bottomless pit of bigotries, presumptions, and false and deficient assumptions that are common to many people, which make them oppose the truly vital principle of LIBERTY, are such things I have long known it would take much of my own time and energies to effectively oppose and resist, and I have been doing this, nearly relentlessly, in many ways, throughout my life.
There is much more that I might say in response to this, but I will refrain for now, as have had very little time to work here in the last few days, and I will probably try to use what time I have here today to getting some necessary work done, in preparation for the impending vote, when it seems I might be asked to suspend my use of some of my abilities for at least a short time. After the tests that are coming, I hope I will have time to more casually and carefully reflect on many things, but for now I have many things here and elsewhere that I must rapidly attend to. ~ Kalki 13:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, if it comes to a vote of confidence, my vote will be for Kalki to retain his Admin and Crat privileges. If someone is able to come forward with specific evidence that alternate accounts were used for vote stacking or vandalism, I'd change my position on that. However, if the only thing Kalki has done is to make valid contributions to articles under different accounts, I see no basis for any action to be taken. If the community wishes to make a policy going forward on alternate accounts, well, there's a process for that. BD2412T 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BD2412, in your comment you have touched on the actual problem that having multiple accounts causes. Whose job is it to monitor these many many accounts for vote stacking or some other type of problem? The many accounts taken up the time of other volunteers when they had to sort out what was going on with them. When Kalki was alerted about concerns last year, then it would have been appropriate to stop rather than make additional accounts. I'm not seeing the level of cooperation from Kalki that I want to see from someone that has made loads of work for other volunteers editors. No one has gone out of their way to bring problems to Kalki. This situation is entirely of Kalki's own making. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight for summarizing that: as a cross-wiki issue and investigation on around 100 accounts, several people spent their hours. To determine if those alternate accounts were used for vote stacking or vandalism, for each investigation, I have spent weeks. I think I had spent my time on much better things than to examine those accounts - but if you BD2412 think Kalki's contribution is worth my laborious weeks which I could have used nevertheless for other things both on wiki and in real life, so it is your judgement, but not mine. Cheers, --Aphaia 03:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Aphaia, who precisely asked you or demanded of you that you do such work, seeking for any trace of vandalism or misuse, when there was no evidence to be found? You blame me that you spent weeks obviously seeking SOMETHING THAT WASNT THERE. You might be extremely admired for diligence, if you had actual found anything substantial, but you seemed to have been on a very wild paranoid goose chase over something that didn't exist, and because my activity excited your own paranoid fantasies and imagination you blame me for all the trouble it has caused you. After what you declare to be many weeks of frustration, at not finding any trivial little thing that might be magnified by your attention to seem malicious intent, you very alarmingly chose to post an extensive list of all the names I have used which were available to you because of my trust in you and by the communities trust in you as a check-user, knowing it would do damage to my reputation with many people, and probably to the project itself, and without any apparent regard for what potentially dangerous personal information might be revealed by some of these names.We are all accountable for our actions, including what information and presumptions, of those available to us, we choose to act upon. I am choosing to believe that there is far more good even in my most relentless attackers than they seem to be willing to accept might even possibly exist in me and the motives for my activities which they can't understand or appreciate.We are all in a period of challenges and tests, and the period of testing is certainly not over, nor will it be in a week or a month or a year. Each and every one of us faces tests every moment of every day, and ever will, for all the days of our lives. Some might find these challenges very distressing, wearying, hopeless — I find our ability to actually learn from some of these very beautiful, and I will not surrender to the will of those who tell me to submit abjectly to anyone's false or deluded assumptions about me or others or the entire world. In many ways I am very flexible and fluid, in many ways very adamant, but I don't expect any other person to be precisely as fluid or precisely as adamant as I on any matter — that would indeed be profoundly ignorant and stupid — and it is precisely what many of the worst and most foolish rule makers and rule enforcers often assume.
Despite the fact that your actions have produced far more trouble and damages than you can yet appreciate, I now welcome the challenges that lay ahead of me, and I choose to continue to look for the good in others, and address that, and build upon it, rather than seeking out the worst, that you might ridicule and condemn the whole person because of some mote you might find in some other's eyes. Look to the beam in your own eyes, and may you go forth in life with ever greater awareness and appreciation of the Truth and Grace which is present in all lives, even those which can seem to us most troublesome. ~ Kalki 12:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My goodness. Didn't read, honestly. I frankly thought this would be a much simpler case to address. Wikiquote is not your personal vanity project, and it is not intended that users should be able to contribute using "cool" or "meaningful" user names. If that's what you want to do, you can say so in 25 words or less, and then let people decide whether that is appropriate behavior for an admin and bureaucrat. Thatcher • (on enwiki) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts follow yours Thatcher, and the conduct and behaviour has repercussions across a wider space than just enWQ. More than that, a bureaucrat then feels that the exploration of the general issue is not worthy of some level of reflection or review, after (at first glance, and second level review) their seemingly erratic behaviour. For a person with an elevated position of authority to try to hinder that with emotive argument concerns me further. Billinghurst 07:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (enWS) and enWP

I've noticed Kalki inserted his comment in the discussion and referred to me, but it is way too long. Honestly I didn't read. I'm busy now with 1) fundraising drive translation coordination which has launched already and 2) preparing a nationwide wikimedia conference in Japan (http://www.wcj2009.info/index.php?title=Main_Page&uselang=en) whose proceeding deadline is this weekend. I think those two concerns in a higher priority than to appreciate your text.

Kalki, if you'd like to get my reply, please 1) summary your question(s) into much simpler and more concise lines. Like FloNight gives you on the below. And please 2) put your comment, questions or whatever on the place in a clear place, not inserting into an existing discussion, rest it would be missed. So I'll reply you, but in the current matter, my answer would be again "too long, didn't read". I have no time to appreciate your talent of prose. Thanks, --Aphaia 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Legends can be now and forever
Teaching us to love for goodness sake.
Legends can be now and forever
Loved by the sun, loved by the sun.
~ Jon Anderson ~
in lyrics of
"Loved by the Sun",
written for the "Unicorn Theme" ofLegend (1986)

They say that I am defiant of their express will and demands:

I will confess it plainly: YES, I AM!

Many are the ways of Truth and Grace, and many are the ways to promote them, whether one fails or succeeds in one's wise or foolish efforts to do so. Some here seem to believe Truth and Grace is entirely on their side, and they might well prevail against me, and even might consider this to be thus proven; but I assert that I have a much broader and profound scope to my vision, and even this comes to be so, such is a supposition I do not and cannot accept.

Those who have prompted and support these measures against me, by which I would be stripped of even admin abilities to block vandals, lock and unlock pages, and edit the locked ones, such as I am not being accused of having ever abused, have made and seem to be prepared to making decisions I consider rash and unwarranted, based upon their own personal suspicions, suppositions and inclinations, and very limited knowledge, and NOT upon the ultimate FACTS of the matter, or the mandates of any established community rules. What I have actually done, now, and in the past, is simply and plainly engaged in what they have called "uncooperative" behavior — by which they mean I have displayed attitudes and dispositions not abjectly obedient enough for their particular personal tastes. To this accusation alone, am I inclined at this point to plead any guilt. To the supposition that I have in any way committed actionable treason to the principles and practices with which this wiki is established, I state that they are plainly displaying extreme contempt for me, and much which I have attempted to do, in both low and high profile ways, here and in the world generally, in which I might operate with any strong or slight connections to these wikis, for the sake of human Liberty and greater Awareness of Truth itself.

From my perspective it is they who violated the established practices and were creating and insisting that their personal preferences and will should be treated by me as AS IF it were official policy, and it was NOT.

I do not in any way seek to absolutely condemn or scorn these people, who, for the most part, I believe to be well motivated and rational in many of their aims, but I want to make very clear my absolute and profound contempt for their currently exhibited attitudes, dispositions, and actions aimed to enforce their personal will and punish opposition to it, in ways NOT clearly mandated by established policies. Any rules I am aware of they could cite against me are only asserted as guidelines and suggestions — which were developed by a few people, ENTIRELY without my own participation, and to my knowledge, not even these were ever actually determined by a community vote, and which I myself have certainly never sought to enforce or impose upon anyone else. I have long recognized and been willing to assert that people ALWAYS do what they actually MUST do, based upon their levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion about matters, and their developed and manifested levels of strengths, weaknesses, wisdom and delusions.

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.JesusChrist (c. 29 AD)

I am an artist of Life. I have in many ways been an artist in my life and with my life, and I seek to justify and celebrate my own existence and the existence of all others in every way I justly and fairly can, throughout all the years of my life. I am in love with many diverse forms of good humor and good will, as well as the capacities for stern and harsh combat against evil and misguided will. I have risked death and more than once come very close to it in my pursuit of both truth and beauty, and faced many tiresome and wearying burdens in my struggles in my efforts to serve Justice and Liberty. The threats I am facing now, though troublesome and relatively trivial, have truly excited and stimulated my impulses to action, far more than they cause me any deep dread or despair, despite having to make massive changes in many of my plans.

I sometimes display a certain flare for the dramatic, the humorous, the inspirational, against which the timid, cowardly and villainous have sometimes complained as they seek to be proponents of regimentation, control and dull drab monotony which they often seem to prefer as simpler and less challenging to their existing ideas and suppositions. In my life I will often seek to justify and reveal much of the beauty of all people and things — even of these adversaries and opponents in every way which I can, much to the displeasure of those who prefer such simplistic formula for action and being as they can believe themselves to understand. I am well aware that many people want to variously label others in deficient ways and to persist in hating them, or dismissing them as in some way worthless, because it makes their decisions about many things seem far simpler.

I am a Poetic Pragmatist, devoted to such Principles of an Ultimate Presence as many of the most "practical-minded" can but barely discern, including Justice, Unity, and Liberty and I know that they sometimes react with cynical ridicule, contempt, fury and outrage when such things are even spoken of, thinking all of reality can in some way be reduced and sufficiently summarized by human understandings, with either their scientific methods or their metaphysical myths, and that such principles and presences as some seek to guide them beyond such realms of thoughts and ideas as they are familiar and comfortable with are always mere illusions. I assert such people are ALWAYS deeply and OFTEN dangerously deluded.

Some might seek even seek to now to limit my abilities to defend myself and my ways of daily reverence and celebration of all that I can, against their close-minded ways, with all the tools at my disposal — with images and with words to awaken the consciences, the reason and the most profound emotions, senses, and sensibilities of others.

I am a lover of ALL Awareness, Life, Liberty and Love itself. To some of you, not yet fully hypnotized and entranced by the delusions of power and absolute forms of control over others which the most foolish often seek, I say as clearly as I can: Don't drop into despair and deep denunciations of destinies and desires with the dullards — so much as you can within your life, reach for the enduring Sun, reach for the enduring Stars, reach for the Eternal Sky. Each and every one of you is eternally connected with each other and all these things, whether you can believe it or not, or whether you can ever come to know the truth of much of what I say or not.

I have acted for the most part here in ways in which I have actually sought to minimize and mitigate the apparent levels of my contributions, and to simply maximize people's abilities to be inspired by ideas many have found inspirational. The cream of the jest here is that, despite my extensive work and what has begun to be revealed as my multi-faceted presence, I have relentlessly tried to avoid having very much attention focused upon myself, and have worked to present and promote greater awareness of many people's ideas, not any clear awareness or details about my own personally. Now people who seem obsessed with some suppositions which I find frankly deficient and flawed have done such things as now IMPEL me to openly state many of my own motivations in defense of myself.

Since I have now felt impelled to make a few disclosures about my personal life and the attitudes I am most inclined to embrace, and am preparing to make a few more later today and in coming days, I will probably henceforth be a bit more be more assertive in many of my own opinions and attitudes about many things than I previously had been — and perhaps more inclined to occasionally share with others a few thoughts upon what I appreciate or dislike about certain quotes, expressions, people and ideas.

I would say that throughout my life I have tried to find ways to relentlessly emphasize and promote much of the best about humanity, and oppose much of the worst. This is not always an easy or even safe thing to do. It is only rarely, with people who have plainly done extreme damage to the world and other people's lives by their forms of extreme presumption and bigotry, that I shift at all from trying to emphasize as much as I can of the good and the very best that people have had to say about Life, the Universe and Everything, and ignore or disregard much of the worst that they have had to say or do.

One of the earliest rules on the wikimedia projects was the cleverly absurdist assertion: "Ignore all rules." This is very close to about the best advice that can be given to those who want to learn things, rather than rest safe, content and satisfied with the status quo, but it in itself is being increasingly ignored by people who would like the status quo about many things to be determined by their ability to make demands and unjustly seek to intimidate others into compliance with their wills, rather than actually enforcing clearly mandated policies.

In my life I have studied much and had discourse with many people of many diverse political and religious faiths and opinions, and there is no one I have ever met in which I did not find some clear indications of some worth and wisdom, even when I was appalled at much I thought of in their ways which was plainly ignorant and confused. Many I have known have been very impressed with and have been very disappointed that they could not find a committed convert in me to their particular political or religious faith or creed, even though I found much in most to respect and cherish, as well as much I had to dispute or reject.

I very aware that some of my intense criticisms of certain attitudes and dispositions that I will make draw the intense criticisms and objections of others towards my own. I fully expect that I am going to be far too busy with many things to immediately or promptly attempt to answer all the questions and objections I can anticipate many people eventually making about my assertions both here, under some of my currently used names, and elsewhere under some of these names and some others besides — so I implore of everyone curious about many of the things I say to have a bit more patience — many of my long developing plans, precautions, projections and practices have to be drastically altered amidst the currently changing circumstances.

I am very glad I am not so much of a fool as to have attempted to live by any absolutely definite plans or rules, because I fully expect the circumstances in coming weeks, months and years are going to be mutating far more rapidly than they have been even in the recent periods of social, economic and political turmoil. I assert that this is NOT necessarily a bad or a good thing, but it is definitely a challenging thing — one that I am currently making many complex and rapid assessments about, as I focus upon what I believe must be my most immediate priorities and efforts.

I thank you all for what attention you may have seen fit to give my assertions here, as I defend myself against charges I find contemptible and others attitudes and dispositions towards me such as I find appalling. May everyone who reads this, whether you are inclined to become an ally and adversary of my own dispositions, come to benefit by them in some way. I know, that though I am usually quite quiet about many things, I am inclined to be very wordy in some ways when I do decide to express my ideas. I expect that this message will probably be the bulk of the comments I make on this page at this time, but I will probably be greatly expanding upon this message and some of my arguments with many further assertions about myself, my ideas and my activities, upon my talk page, and provide some more information about this dispute's history with posts from past messages, for much of the next day or two. Though I have already had a chance to write much more down today, I am not through arranging and refining it, and considering what to include or leave out. In writing these things I have not had time to do much else here today, and wish to finish up on some of my more routine work as soon as possible. I also am getting very tired, and will probably have to soon nap for at least an hour or two.

I had composed much of this message in a single day, was going to post it soon after 2009·11·11 00:00 but decided to take a nap and review it and developments when I awoke, as I was very tired. I awoke with some significant new ideas, which I presently am working on, and thus I will assert I have only just begun to present my arguments and assertions about MANY related things, and I am actually looking forward to many of the challenges in the days and weeks ahead, no matter what might be decided here.

As I begin to draw this particular message to a close, I seek to now invoke some of the greatest expressions of wisdom of which I am familiar, in defending myself and my own peculiar ways.

I would like now to cite the expressions of two people some might consider totally contrary in disposition, because of but cursory awareness of them, the traditions they represent, their particular works and ways, and the ever self-circling expressions of humanity itself. Here, so long as it clearly harms none, and violates no established guidelines and necessary policies for precision and accuracy, I would like to help to establish the broadly tolerant practice, epitomized by Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law." As with any wiki, anything which enough other people consider to be in any way misguided or erroneous can be swiftly or gradually corrected. But I will also cite a quote of a much more broadly admired person, who expressed similar sentiments many centuries before, Saint Augustine of Hippo:

Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

I would like to here state a few of my own refinements upon these expressions and ideas and declare that it is always good to seek to love others and Reality itself, though others and Reality, and even one's self, are always beyond mortal comprehension, and thus in some ways beyond all mortal love. I am also very well aware that we all always do what necessity and our levels of awareness, ignorance and confusion about necessities impels us to do, and thus can easily be forgiven for many errors or delusions by the wise. The Love of Truth and the Truths of Love are always in many ways complicated, and yet also paradoxically simple as well, and thus I will close with a far simpler and easier injunction than others might make, which I believe it would be very hard for any entirely sane person to ever speak against:

Love Truth and Do What You Will. ~ Kalki 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I dare say: too long; didn't read. You seem to forget English is no native language for some participants and some of us are busy with other concerns including volunteering fundraising drive whose outcome enables the site running. Please remind that showing your talent of prose is not always a friendly act. --Aphaia 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can fully sympathize with your limited understanding of what I know to you is a foreign language, but I will dare to say that "Too long, didn't read" seems to be becoming a very common ploy among several people who seem to be VERY hasty and eager to simply condemn me, based upon only such very few facts and presumptions as they have chosen to focus upon and magnify, rather than my long YEARS of activity here. Believe me, you can choose to ignore what you wish to, but not all will ignore all that I say, and many might actually come to see that there is far more light to be shed on many subjects than you have chosen to let be revealed, or even to acknowledge. ~ Kalki 12:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brevity, inclusiveness, and relevance are also attributes. As a native English speaker, and a WMFian, it would seem to me that addressing the particular points that relate to the role of an administrator: the leadership aspects, demonstration of the expected values and behaviours, how the undertakings could be seen to add value to the project; would have been a more expected delivery of an argument, instead there seems to be a very poetic distraction. The proposal was solely about the reviewing of the undertaking of the role and within the community's expectations, not a reflection on your personal character, not religious believes or credo nor the motives. All administration roles are for the assistance of the project within the community's aims, neither prizes nor fancies to be displayed. It would seems that you are trying to cast aspersions at those who have brought this matter to the community and have produced elements of shoot the messenger. They are legitimate concerns, they have been legitimately raised, and the community can expect their concerns to be noted, and simple answers to be provided without the verbiage. If you don't have the time to address the community, in anything but your own timeframe, that would seem to portray either a level of disrespect or disregard. Billinghurst 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously being able to express myself with what you seem to perceive is merely "Poetic distraction" doesn't fit into your very narrow and limited views of "leadership aspects, demonstration of the expected values and behaviours, how the undertakings could be seen to add value to the project" and your willingness to use some rather blunt and unpoetic distractions, quite transparent to me. I AM addressing the issues, and addressing them as vigorously as I can. I am NOT attacking Aphaia, or anyone else by claiming that whatever deficiencies of judgment they exhibited should be automatically and severely punished. I am attacking the false, foul, damaging and deficient messages that have been delivered urging automatic and unquestioning compliance with a very few people's express will. I am using my wit and my mind to awaken a bit more of people's consciences and intellectual capacities than some seem to want to be awakened. You seem to be not only attacking my message with distortions and but even my right and my will to deliver them as I see fit, rather than you do, and to be saying something along the lines of "Simply shut up and address the issues your attackers and those hostile to the FREEDOMS you defend, think are the only important ones that need be addressed, and don't appeal to any ideas or causes higher or greater than we want you to, or can easily understand."I will certainly NOT make any promise to simply be brief in defense of myself and my actions, but I will be very inclusive and seek to make plain the relevance of many things. Some people seem to be inclined to believe that I might a person easily swayed by insults or threats into submission to their will, and they will increasingly learn that they are pathetically mistaken. Though generally of amiable disposition, I will not simply quietly and calmly roll over and "play dead" like a submissive little dog when my abilities to do good are attacked or assaulted, nor leave myself and others further vulnerable to the herd-think mentalities that are beginning to be increasingly displayed here. I am citing PRINCIPLES and practices that were set forth as ideals expressed in the very first stages of the Wikipedia project, which existed long before many of the growing minions of people who seem to think that they should promote some form of meticulously regimented authoritarian oligarchy where they can DICTATE policy for others that was NOT created by the community at large. Even if you have read them before, PLEASE EXAMINE ANEW: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and the other links available there, including the links delineating much which Wikipedia was NOT. These have changed somewhat since I first read them, and I do not pretend to totally agree with all they state, but they remain among the most properly humble and amusing precepts that established these projects. Many of the assertions made for Wikipedia plainly defied "conventioal wisdom" but helped it to become so important a work as it is, and they apply well here also, but some do not, and whereas an Encyclopedia should stifle many forms of artistic expressions, in ways that among some administrators seem to have developed into a rather arrogant presumption of their right and abilities to issue commands to others, I have asserted from the very earliest days of this project, throughout all my many years of activity here, that the presentation of quotes is something I have always asserted should be far freer, and even less constrained by rules and assumptions than the development of an encyclopedia. I have also lived a life far less constrained by many popular assumptions than most, but I certainly don't demand that everyone do entirely as I do, in any regard, still less that they do entirely as I say. ~ 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, full disclosure, I did not read. Please note that it was I who began investigating you in 2009, after receiving a tip that you had used sockpuppets in 2008 and were allowed to get away with it. I take a very dim view of administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, or whatever, who get away with stretching and bending the rules for their own benefit. I began the investigation. I contacted checkusers on other projects. I did not push the matter on the stewards, but respected the procedures and policies of each individual project. I waited patiently for Aphaia to clear her schedule so she could address this problem. Whatever else your conduct is, it is peculiar, puzzling, and demands investigation. The fact that you are now blaming Aphaia for the investigation proves rather more effectively than anything else that your conduct is not compatible with holding admin and bureaucrat status.Thatcher • (on enwiki) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I too "take a very dim view of administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, or whatever, who get away with stretching and bending the rules for their own benefit" — ABSOLUTELY. I also take a dim view of PRETENDING something is MANDATED which is NOT, for the benefit of a very few people and to what I perceive to be the detriment of many others. I have never enforced or sought to enforce any rules that sought to restrict the numbers of usernames users could use to make honestly contributive efforts, and never even pretended to anyone that I thought such a rules were even a very good idea, as Poetlister/Cato hypocritically did last year. There is much more I would like to say, but I probably won't have time to address the issue anymore right now, as I must be leaving soon, and though I might be able to check in a few times elsewhere, I expect to be very busy with other things for at least a few hours. ~ Kalki 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to repeat I am NOT attacking Aphaia, I am making observations about behavior and apparent motives, and I know we all must follow the dictates of Necessity, and thus I am very prone to be forgiving.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Just a parting shot here, as I prepare to leave for a while, about some of the foundational principles of the weird and wonderful undertakings known as the Wikimedia projects, which I have always attempted to serve in many ways, and against any presumptuous rule-making, individuals or groups of them who seem to be overly eager to DEFINE all rules for everyone in ways that are not to the clear benefit of anyone. I remain one of the most vigorously active administrators on this project, and if stripped of admin tools to serve it, I will continue to serve it as a user and a voice of dissent against the growing numbers of people accustomed to issuing commands and demands that are NOT appropriate to the foundational principles and practices of these Wikis. ~ Kalki 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

answer yes or no - YES — so far as I can determine at this point; though I have not yet had a chance to fully review all of them, and doing so will probably take me some time. I have been tagging those I have examined and am willing to clearly and explicitly identify as mine with a tag clearly stating this, and will probably continue to do this, to the extent I have the time.

Besides the ones listed, did you create or edit with any other accounts in 2009?

answer yes or no - YES, I am fairly sure that I have, and again assert I see nothing wrong with this, nor expressly forbidden by established policies, so long as I make constructive or protective edits against vandalism, and not malicious or clearly irresponsible ones.

Besides the ones listed, did you create or edit with any other accounts prior to 2009?

answer yes or no - Again, YES, I am quite confident I have.

Do any accounts besides your Kalki account have any special user permissions?

answer yes or no - NO — and I have declined suggestions that they be provided such, including suggestions such as the one made on this wiki for the Achilles account, and others elsewhere suggesting they would support my nomination.

Will you agree to stop creating new accounts?

answer yes or no - NO - not unless it is clearly MANDATED by a community vote explicitly limiting the number of user accounts which can be acquired. I do expect such a measure might seem desirable and reasonable to most people, but it is not by me. IF such a measure were actually passed, I would then limit my active accounts to such an agreed to number, and permit the others to be locked, as some already have been, due to a few false presumptions manifested last year. I also would NOT support a motion that all active accounts need to be publicly or even privately declared, as that somewhat defeats the long ACCEPTED uses of some of them.

Will you agree to stop editing with more than one account?

answer yes or no - Again, NO, unless this is CLEARLY mandated by express community determined policy, and not merely the edicts and presumptions of a few active officials who I honestly believe have in many ways already exceeded their proper prerogatives and authority in making some demands upon me, which I have thus far declined to comply with.

Why should Kalki agree to stop creating/editing with other accounts, if that is not prohibited conduct? Would it not suffice for him to agree to disclose all accounts, and/or to not to use them for improper purposes such as vote-stacking, vandalism, etc. (which he has already expressly denied doing, and which there is no indication he has ever done any of anyway)? BD2412T 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see his answers to the questions so that I can understand how we need to go forward now. The simplest solution is for Kalki to edit from one account, the rest be blocked and tagged as Kalki's alternative accounts. But if he wants to continue editing with more than one account then the Community needs to be made aware of his desire, and then decide if the way to precede.

I've only begun to review the accounts but so far I've seen overlaps between the accounts that cause me some concern. If the account list is accurate, then there were times that people thought that they were talking to two people in the same discussion when both users were the same person. In other instance it is clear that people talking to one of the alternative accounts were disturbed by the heated comments made during discussions. Other times, an alternative account reverted and left a warning, and Kalki soon after blocked the account. Additionally, people welcomed an account. Someone discussed becoming an admin with one of the accounts. Based on this initial review, I think that using the alternative accounts in discussions is not for the best. I'm going to continue reviewing the accounts after Kalki answers. I've started a subpage in my user space to record the evidence I find. But before I go on with the review, I want to confirm the answers to the questions. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly I didn't see that there was a requirement for these actions, nor a demand nor a formal proposal. I saw that they were questions of interest to the person as a matter of informing them. Semantically "Would you ..." may have sounded gentler, but so be it. I am interested in whether Kalki sees what are reasonable limitations on behaviour in general, and their behaviour particularly. Billinghurst 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of this response was originally posted at my talk page:

I have been very busy today, and did not have the time to even check in here but very briefly a couple of times earlier, and just recently got in for the day. Unfortunately, I am now expecting many real-life tasks and non-Wikiquote activities to be consuming much of my time over the next week or so, but will continue to make statements concerning current controversies to the extent I have the time, as well as doing what work I can here, if their remains some periods where I can simply relax from the mental stresses of complicated considerations and the formation of adequate compositions and expressions to actually do that. I have just now looked at your questions, and will respond to them adequately when I have the time, which I expect to have within the next day or so, though I will state that delivering a response to your particular questions is not actually going to be the highest priority on my agenda, as I am also at work on other ideas to defend myself against the current blizzard of assumptions, presumptions and accusations. I might well have some surprising Yes or No questions for others to respond to as well. ~ Kalki 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I WILL respond to your questions, but I myself will have to take time to thoroughly examine the list and the actual userpages, because I know I have occasionally mistakenly tried to log in with names I used elsewhere that actually were not available to me here. Most of them do seem to be mine, and I won't deny I have others as well and I might be openly declaring more of these in the next few days, now that much of my activity has been intensely criticized as if it was unethical and contemptible, when it has actually always been done with the best interest of others in mind, not merely something I do entirely for my own amusement. I would assert that you seem to be very eager to come up with some minor incident that you can make to seem some major breach of ethics. I'm quite sure you will come up with more you will disapprove of, and might try to imply is clearly unethical, and I might possibly be able to provide you with some, but I will state blankly that you seem to be operating under quite a few presumptions I myself find objectionable, and I will eventually clearly state what many of these are, as I deal with the many issues which are currently impelling me to nearly ceaseless activity in recent days. ~ Kalki 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You could have answered question 4, 5, 6. Each of them could be answered without such a review. Why not? --Aphaia 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an extremely honest person, and I do intend to provide very honest Yes or No responses to the questions — but I certainly do NOT intend to LIMIT myself to Yes or No responses, as some people seem to think would be very convenient them, as a way of fortifying many of their own contemptible assumptions and arguments. I have always been willing to declare myself a fool, but I am not so simplistic or simple-minded a fool as some people here seem to wish I was, and I will continue to oppose many of their contemptible presumptions with the utmost vigor of my being. ~ Kalki 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add a question to the ones made by FloNight. In doing so, I wish to direct our attention to some remarks made above by Kalki:

"Though I know this might seem melodramatically paranoid to people not aware of all the circumstances I am aware of, her [Aphaia's] actions in needlessly and openly publicizing a few of these user names has actually to some degree, ultimately endangered my own and other people's lives and already necessitated the extreme revision of many years of work. I will now publicly ask her to cease and desist from any intentions she might have of publicizing any more, as I will openly assert that at least one of these could endanger me and others even more severely, and at the very least would burden me and others with many more extreme hardships.

I don't intend to elaborate at this point entirely how or why I tend to believe some of these assertions to be true, as that would probably only worsen some very dangerous circumstances which I seek to avoid or diminish, but I will go so far as to say that I do sincerely believe it..."

Kalki states that he does not wish to explain his reasons for believing lives to be in danger in this matter. Nevertheless, this claim cannot simply be taken for granted, as taking it literally would obviously affect our consensus in making a vote of confidence. I must therefore ask Kalki the following additional question:

7. What grounds have you for believing that lives are in danger because of these usernames becoming known as your surrogates?

The principle of Assume Good Faith means that in all matters, until plainly proven otherwise, the good intentions of an editor should never be called into question. I am willing, as always, to assume good faith for motives. And yet it is not motives that are in question here but, rather, someone's actions; and actions should always be open to skeptical analysis. A vote of confidence is based not only on charges, if proven, of wrongdoing; it is also based on the general confidence that an editor can be trusted with administrative powers. The fact that an editor has intimated that lives are in danger, without explaining why, is itself a factor which needs to be investigated before making a vote of confidence. Therefore, as much as it may pain Kalki to elaborate on this matter, I see no alternative to asking. - InvisibleSun 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish to point out that I realize Aphaia had no reason to expect that her actions could in any way be so significantly disruptive or gravely dangerous to me, and I am NOT making the claim that I myself or anyone else is in immediate danger because of any of them, but at this point I will simply state, that some of the names already stated could provide some indications of who I or acquaintences of me are, in real life, and that I have also used certain clearly related identities elsewhere. One of the names NOT named would pretty clearly and directly identify me publicly to everyone.
I have long intended to declare in rather strong terms, under certain pseudonyms, such things as I knew would win me the extreme hostility of many people, including some of the most brutal and vicious fanatics that exist, with very strong denunciations of many of their methods and aims, and I had actually meant to begin to do so in initially relatively mild assertions, ALREADY, on the 11th, in fact, but had to rapidly alter my plans because some of my previously safe aliases elsewhere, which I had intended to use, would now too easily compromise my general identity in the world.
I am in a period of extensive reassessment of my options, and am taking into account many things. I have calmed down a bit, as I consider many of these, and am relaxing with a bit of relatively easy browsing here for a while, constantly reviewing potential and actual circumstances. It might sound merely paranoid to you that I even have such expectations, but I do actually expect that there will eventually be many people eager to see me dead, or at least brutally harmed in some ways, because of some of the assertions that I intend to make. I don't expect to remain someone unidentified to most forever, but I do intend to keep much of my life discretely private, so long as possible, not merely for my own safety, but for the safety of some of those associated with me. I won't provide any more details of my plans or expectations than this, at this point.
I do not insist that people believe I have strong reasons for believing this, but I will state that I honestly believe that within about a year, and perhaps even a few months, my life will definitely start to be in extreme danger because of people hostile to some of my ideas and statements. The less information they have to try to clearly identify me, the better. ~ Kalki 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it is absurd to proceed under the belief that anonymity means anything with respect to editing on Wikimedia projects. I doubt that the system is secure against such information being hacked, simply because the purpose of the project is to gather information, not necessarily to do it in a way that protects the anonymity of users. It is my understanding that the Wikimedia Foundation has already determined that it will not fight court orders to turn over identifying information about its editors, which may then become a matter of public record. That said, I find it highly unlikely that much of anything that occurs in terms of edits to this site could invoke threats of physical harm. BD2412T 03:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just waking up from a much needed nap, and I will simply state that I am not actually so paranoid as to have any strong worries about any actual legal inquires, because I am NOT engaged in any actually illegal activities, nor do I intend to be, nor was I worried about anything that I had actually meant to declare on any Wikimedia site causing me any extreme troubles, but rather what I had intended, and still intend to declare elsewhere, through far more appropriate avenues of communication for extensively discussing and revealing my own ideas about many things, which I remain very reluctant to reveal here, for many reasons. I had not sought to openly reveal here even so much has now already begun to be indicated, and I am still considering how much of my own beliefs, ideas, and activities to reveal and how much to keep private, as I respond to the current little controversy over my use of more names than might normally be expected of a well-intentioned user. ~ Kalki 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In summary: I am simply stating that a few open and publicly available connections can now be made, between me and aliases I use elsewhere which could not have been definitely made before, nor would it have been likely they would have been made by the more elaborate efforts of hackers. My own public profile among even these projects has now been raised considerably in ways I prefer it had not been. I would much rather have continued to seem someone of no more interest to anyone here than any other rather personally subdued, well devoted and plodding editor and admin, such as I ever was. ~ Kalki 06:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalki is a fan of Aleister Crowley, he quotes him above, and has many times suggested Crowley quotes for quote of the day. Many of the sockpuppet user names are related in some way to Crowley and Magik. Perhaps this is what he is referring to when he claims that revealing these names puts his own and other's lives in danger. Note above that Kalki says, I have long intended to declare in rather strong terms, under certain pseudonyms, such things as I knew would win me the extreme hostility of many people, including some of the most brutal and vicious fanatics that exist, with very strong denunciations of many of their methods and aims. (Do Crowley followers really think they have hidden evil enemies? Maybe they think they do.) This raises a number of concerns.

Wikiquote is not to be used for personal vendettas, advocacy or righting the world's wrongs.

What is he really using these accounts for? Not just making innocent extra contributions, apparently.

Isn't it pretty irresponsible to use sensitive user names that could put you in danger on one of the most visible public web sites in the world?

What is really going on here?

These questions would not need to be asked if not for Kalki's own defense, of course. If he had said, "I agree to use only one account from now on (with random checkuser verification)" this probably would have been dropped. This increasingly bizarre defense plus FloNight's in-depth examination of his contributions mandates such questions. Thatcher • (on enwiki) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I will simply state at this point that I an NOT actually a great "fan", of Crowley — and CERTAINLY no "follower" of him. I find him in many ways extremely contemptible and stupid, but that does not keep me from acknowledging that he did actually declare some striking and impressive expressions, worthy of quoting. I am far more a fan of JesusChrist, GuatamaBuddha, Laozi, Walt Whitman, and innumerable others. Crowley probably would not even make it into my top 1000, if you got right down to it. I am far more endangered in both trivial and major ways by such idiotic assumptions as many people are inclined to make based upon very little evidence, and MUCH presumption, and I don't actually fear the smarmy smug fools who might merely think me a nuisance to their presumed authority here. I am talking of people who are the truly intolerant, and do not hesitate to kill those they hate, or merely don't care about. I HAVE faced such people in the past, and I intend to again, but the less I actually have to face them with them knowing how hostile I am to their presumptions the better. Some fools dislike harsh language — I dislike harsh actions which actually cause permanent injuries to people and their ability to do good in this world, however camouflaged they might be by niceties. I know that I might seem rude in stating certain assumptions are foolish — but I know that we are all often prone to mistaken and apparently foolish assumptions from time to time, and do not hesitate to regularly call myself a fool, often many times a day. I will also assert that in reviewing the list provided, I found that I might have well made a mistake, and there might not actually be a name among them that actually endangers my projects and intentions and possibly my life in the months ahead, though there is one very similar to it. As to the names I AM worried about, it is not merely a matter of the names, which, save for one, would be but a loose association, and not definite, but it was rather some links that could be made because of information provided WITH the names, and which could now become more easily and clearly in some ways linked to far more extensive presence here or elsewhere, to names I had not tried all that hard to hide at all. ~ Kalki 12:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to take a Wikibreak. I'll leave this matter to others from now on. If Wikiquote wants to beclown itself (again) by declaring that Kalki is its most important and untouchable functionary, then so be it. Thatcher • (on enwiki) 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I too must soon leave, but I probably will have a bit more time to check in for a while than I did yesterday. I want to make one thing as clear as possible though: no matter how irate I might occasionally get at people's assumptions attitudes and actions, I do NOT wish anyone any permanent distress — but neither am I willing to calmly let them do severe injury to my own or other people's abilities or lives, merely because they are operating with many assumptions that I can perceive to be plainly false or extremely deficient, no matter how viable and convincing some of them might seem to them. I truly hope everyone can come to laugh at much that has occurred with good humor — and I myself actually don't mind being considered something of a clown, so long as I am not automatically assumed to be some kind of deranged or malicious one. Suspect what you must, of me and others, I ENCOURAGE skepticism — but don't needlessly assume anyone guilty of such things as might seem sensible to you, with very insufficient evidence. ~ Kalki 13:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This all seems to be turning into one giant soap opera, and a virtual game of tiggy with riddles.

The focus needs to be on enWQ and its administration. There are very specific questions raised, and it would be excellent to see some brief, direct and informative responses to those questions. Getting this from a 'crat should not be this difficult.

If a person's life is at risk for being an administrator and bureaucrat, then please leave and make yourself safe. The role is not worth that amount of angst.

If the exposure of the user names puts you at risk, then they were unwise use of account names, and absolutely nobody should see that alignment of socks and a real another account as putting anyone in danger, or unable to be publicised. Goodness, isn't that the point of the whole discussion and why we rail against socks.

The angst that I see displayed from the community is that there have been some very simple questions asked, for the sake of people trying to better understand actions, and to put it in perspective. All I see is avoidance and manipulation of both the questions and the reasonability for there being asked.

I think a giant soap opera seems to be a fairly apt description. What is being asked is simple, but what we are getting is complex, divisive, not direct or informative... but not necessarily germane. If lives are in danger, perhaps then it would be for the best if all the accounts were blocked and Kalki discontinued editing here entirely. The geni cannot be put back in the bottle, after all. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe much ado about nothing or ultimately needless and presumptuous ado about very little would be far more apt. People seem to be focused a great deal upon one of my more dramatic and genuine concerns which I let slip in my initial period of alarm, distress and outrage at some of the presumptions clearly at work against me, on the part of others. What damages the past revelations can do have already been done, and the newly proposed idea of simply blocking me, as if I had clearly violated some clearly established rules that would require such action, frankly seems a ploy to simply shut me up and censor my vigorous opinions from being further heard. I do NOT claim that the identification of most of the accounts are of any reason for great alarm to me, no matter how irritating or frustrating they might be, and IF the community actually insisted on clearly limiting the number of accounts after a period of significant debate on doing so, I would then abide by such rules as had become mandatory. As of now there have been only advisories and guidelines developed relatively recently, and which I never endorsed because I could not honestly and honorably do so, nor had ever sought to actively oppose because they were loose enough that I did not feel too tightly bound to any expectations of people actually heeding them if they did not choose to, though they have now become a source of some consternation to me. In all regards I am an advocate of maximal freedom from restraints that are not clearly necessary or to a sufficient degree are clearly more beneficial than detrimental to most of those concerned about them.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. ~ John Adams (1772)

All projects of government, formed upon a supposition of continual vigilance, sagacity, and virtue, firmness of the people, when possessed of the exercise of supreme power, are cheats and delusions ... The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical. ~ John Adams (1815)

People have sometimes here made statements that show extremely distorted, skewed and outright false interpretations of what I have said. I certainly NOWHERE at any point declared such an ridiculous thing as that my "life is at risk for being an administrator and bureaucrat" as would make the suggestion that I "please leave and make yourself safe" make any sense other than as an extreme form of declaring a wish that I, and some of the issues I am intent on more clearly raising and focussing upon in response to those raised against me, simply would "go away."

I believe that too many have regarded the potential further restrictions of my freedoms, and theirs, as something beneficial to all in a very clearcut way. I am still preparing some declarations which I hope will clearly indicate that this is NOT necessarily true, and that I know I might well have the need to argue further, IF people move to have the existing freedoms removed, and some definite limits set on the number of accounts people can have.

I continue to insist : So long as Liberty is not endangered, let existing freedoms not only remain intact, but in many ways grow, with the growth of human awareness and new forms of human potentials for wit and wisdom. ~ Kalki 11:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If all the listed accounts all belong to you, then the evidence that I'm compiling shows that you have used multiple accounts in Community discussions going back to 2004. Sometimes your accounts talk to each other which misleads people into thinking that more than one person was involved in the discussion. Do you agree that using multiple accounts distorts community decision making because people think that additional people hold a view about a matter?

Please make labeling the accounts your top priority when you log into Wikiquote. And I ask you to not edit from any account that is not labeled. I've seen at least one other recent account (created in Oct. 2009) that could belong to you. Could you please label all accounts that you create so that we don't get into a bigger backlog of work related to this situation? My personal opinion is that you should be limited to one account because I see limited value coming from your multiple accounts and a large downside to you using them. But until Community consensus forms about the issue, please limit yourself to using labeled accounts in each discussion so as to not confuse people more. Can you agree to these modest requests? FloNight♥♥♥ 12:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can and do agree to the request that all accounts I use between now and such time as further community determinations are clearly made upon the matter will be clearly labelled as my own. I am aware of what evidence you have gathered in which you seem to imply I have done something deliberately unethical in even making such statements, as an admin, as inform anyone reading the comments that matters which were mentioned while I had been using another account have been taken care of (I believe that sometimes I had very good reasons for not using my admin account at the time the comments were made with a simple user account). I agree that it could be misleading, but it is hardly harmful to anyone, and it would sometimes probably have been more confusing to people if I had not posted such a note. I am fairly confident that in the over 6 years of my editing here, with upwards of 44,000 edits overall, that there are probably only about a half dozen cases, if that, where such events occurred, where some might construe there were 2 individuals having a conversation, if they actually bothered to notice the rather trivial remarks at all. I know there might perhaps be about the same number of edits where I did some editing on the same talk page within a short amount of time, usually, if not always, initially by mistake, and slightly more than that where edits to the same talk page were done at vastly different times, but I don't think there are more than a extremely small number of those either. ~ Kalki 12:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, your agreement to use only labeled accounts is limited. You do not agree to always edit with accounts that are clearly link to you. At some future time you want to use unlinked accounts again? That is what I take from your comment. Before we begin the VoC, this point needs to be clarified. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were not explicitly forbidden by some form of mandated edict of extreme IDIOCY I certainly would wish to use unlinked accounts again. That was always one of the several clearly stated reasons in Wikipedia policies why such an account might be legitimately created in the first place. To prevent different issues from spilling over into each other. What you seem to be proposing is that LONG STANDING legitimate reasons for creating such accounts now begin to be totally disregarded and forbidden. I don't know how long you have been active on the Wikimedia projects, but before the growing numbers of people with apparent ambitions to establish oligarchies among the various officials on the wikis, such absolute control and knowledge of a person's editing activities were such things as were not considered desirable. There is clearly a need for fighting clear vandals with all tools available, but NOT a need for monitoring and knowing all one can about clearly responsible general editors.
As Accountability, I quoted Wikipedia polices on the matter as of October 2007 (which seem to have mutated even further since), in contending about the issue, and had stated on User talk:Accountability page:

In any wiki a person might reluctantly enter into particular disputes such as often arise when dealing with extreme forms of religious or political fanaticism under one username and thus not be so subject to being regularly disturbed and interrupted as he or she goes about making less contentious contributions to many other articles under another. This had long been recognized as a legitimate reason for multiple accounts, as in the Wikipedia policies regarding : Legitimate uses of multiple accounts:

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

Frankly there is at least one name I would not now openly identify as mine, even though I might conceivably never use it again, simply because it would provide my birth name to people, and the current situation has shattered what degrees of trust I had in the common sense discretion of people involved in being CUs, and even their understanding and acceptance of some Foundational Wiki policies and practices. ~ Kalki 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am quite aware that my case in regards to the numbers of my names is an extreme one, hard for others to sympathize with, and quite outside of normal practices of people who are NOT vandals, but also certainly not yet a forbidden one; yet I also know I have never misused these names in any deliberate way, and have rarely sought in any way to inhibit or remove potentially useful options available to those who did respect the mandated and truly necessary rules. ~ Kalki 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you edited many controversial topics with your main account Kalki account AND several other user names, I do not think that you were using the segregated account reasoning as it was intended. And it is always on the person creating an alternative account to use it in a way that is above reproach. It an account does get noticed then it would not be appropriate to make misleading comments in order to keep the link from being discovered. In more than one instance, misleading statements were made to keep the identify of the account unknown. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is NOTHING that anyone can do in this world that is "above reproach" from someone's perspectives. Some people resent other people simply existing at all, especially if they exist with some forms of greater capacities or will of action than they. I did seek to retain my privacy, and not provide too many strong clues to any aspects of my personal identity. That some very rare examples of my actions to protect my privacy, or knowledge of my regular use of alternate accounts were "misleading" in some ways, I do acknowledge, that they were maliciously misleading, I deny, and that they were deliberately dishonest I also deny, though I know that there might be some instances where it might be very difficult or impossible to prevent very reasonable suspicions of that. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if using multiple accounts was causing you to be deceptive, then you needed to stop using them. That seems like the obvious answer to me. There is absolutely no reason for someone to need to use these accounts in the manner that you did. It is possible to use a single alternative account for a specific purpose without raising concerns. But that is far away from what occurred here. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.